Hit 'em where it hurts

My wife and I were discussing the miserable failure's various miserable failures and eventually hit on the subject of the environment.  Unfortunately, environmental issues are important to most people, but not enough to swing their votes (unless the landfill/chemical dump/nuclear plant is in your backyard, it's a vague long-term problem).  Here's a way for Kerry, the DNC, or, more likely, a 527 with some cahones to hit * hard for his disasterous policies:

TV spot; camera pulls back to reveal a scene where a doctor is reviewing an ultrasound readout w/an obviously expectant mother and father-to-be.  No dialogue is heard, but the parents are obviously distraught.

Voiceover: President Bush has given the green light for corporate polluters to dump 10 times more mercury into our air, rivers, streams, and oceans.  He did this by repealing legislation that would have enforced drastic reductions in mercury emissions. But that would have cost his corporate backers, so he did them a favor--he lined their pockets with gold, saving them money that would have gone towards cleaner systems.  Mr. President, what amount of money or votes could be worth exposing unborn children to a toxin like mercury, known for causing birth defects, even death?

Camera zooms in on ultrasound screen and a steady heartbeat is heard, growing more thready until the scene fades to black.

Now, I'm obviously no screenwriter or copywriter, but damn, I think that tells it like it is--shrub is willing to deform the fetuses he so cherishes for votes.

asked him how he would feel if his favorite hunting grounds were suddenly decimated due to logging/pollution?

asked him if it was fine with him that eating local trout and other fish was dangerous due to pcb/mercury levels?

in order to hunt/fish -- there has to be something to hunt/fish, but if the environment is polluted then there will be nothing but "brown fields"

For those voting for him just on the abortion issue, this would be at least unsettling. It might sway some of them.

touchy subject and they come back with something about abortion. Sorry keep trying. Maybe kid coughing or something less touchy. At least you are thinking. Sorry for the negativity.

goondogger -

Meaning no disrespect, but the whole "Bush increased permissible mercury levels" is a bit of a canard.

Clinton signed an executive order at the tail-end of his second term (along with all of the pardons he issued for people like Marc Rich) which "lowered" the allowable standards for mercury.

The "previous" permissible amount (which is the one actually in-place at present) has been in-force since the Eisenhower administration; Bush simply used *his* executive powers to overturn Clinton's 11th hour change to mercury standards.

Bottom line: these present standards have been the same for more than four decades.

When we attack Bush without having our (easily researchable) facts straight, we look like childish, petulant idiots. This gives legitimate ammo to the Republicans and severely damages *our* credibility.

It also hurts our opportunities to win-over independent voters (something we cannot afford to do).

LL

"along with all the pardons he issued for people like Marc Rich" What the heck does that have to do with this discussion? Meaning no disrespect of course. :eyes:

texasblueeyes -

Considering that so many Democrats complain "the rich don't pay their fair share", I think Clinton's pardon was a little disingenuous, n'est çe pas?

Marc Rich is the biggest tax cheat in U.S. history. And he was very nicely rewarded for *not* paying his fair share, wasn't he? Whatever the reason for the pardon, it *looks* (even to me) like a big "thanks" for contributing money to Democrats.

We're always happy to point out when Republicans reward *their* campaign contributors with stuff like favorable legislation but tend to turn a blind eye when the same thing is done by one of our own.

By not being introspective about our own party's behavior, it severely undercuts our moral authority to criticize others.

Since this presidential election is looking to be mighty damned close (as was the last one), the opinion of folks who are independent voters is *very* important.

If we can't demonstrate to independents that Democrats are better than the Republicans on issues like integrity, why should we expect their vote?

I've spoken with a *lot* of independents; most of them are disgusted with the corruption they perceive on behalf of both Republicans and Democrats.

Which is precisely why they're inpendents; they're fed-up with *both* parties. And we really need their votes in November.

LL

I'm george bush and i approve of this message